Rejected Gifts The World's First Murder, Part 1

Why does God reject Cain's gift? Doesn't He know that favoritism can lead to sibling rivalry?

We are reading the Book of Genesis these days. Every Shabbat in synagogue, we listen dutifully to the weekly parasha. But somehow, it all seems to fly by so fast. Occasionally, while listening to the Torah reading in shul, we’ll stop to read a perplexing story more carefully. But before we know it, the person reading the Torah is up to the next aliyah. So we shelve our thoughts, and follow along -- with a vague hope that maybe we’ll remember the idea next year and get to explore it some more.

If you’ve ever wanted to “stop the train”, and get off and look around at the sights a little -- consider this the invitation you’ve been waiting for. I invite you to come with me on a on a little adventure. Spend ten minutes a week with me over the next two months or so -- and we’ll take a fascinating journey into the heart of one of the Torah’s most basic, primal stories: The tale of the World’s First Murder, the story of Cain’s killing of Abel. It is a story that has much hidden meaning, awaiting our discovery. We’ll read it slowly and take our time – even as the scenery of the rest of Genesis flashes by our weekly window.

There are lots of legitimate questions we can ask about the Biblical story of Cain and Abel. But I'm going to begin this discussion of the episode by asking you a question that I consider to be wrong-headed and misleading. The question, I think, is based on a fundamental misreading of the text. But I'm going to ask it anyway.

Why would I do such a thing? To be perfectly frank, if I thought I could get away with ignoring the question, I would. But I don't think I can. The question is too obvious and too troubling. My guess is that most people who look at the Cain and Abel story are immediately bothered by some shape or form of this question. So we might as well talk about it. If we don't, you'll just think I'm avoiding it.

To see the question, we need to briefly summarize the story we are looking at. Here's a 30 second snapshot of the narrative -- followed by my best, devil's-advocate-style rendition of a question I don't really believe in:

Cain and Abel, children of Adam and Eve, each bring offerings to the Lord. The Almighty expresses pleasure with the offering brought by Abel, but not with that brought by his older brother Cain. Cain becomes very upset. Shortly afterwards, he kills his brother Abel.

Well class, there's more to the story than that, but why don't we stop here for the time being. Let's go around the room: Is everyone here happy with this story?

I see a lot of shaking heads.

OK. What's wrong with this picture?

What's really jarring is the pattern of behavior embarked upon by the Almighty.

To be sure, the story doesn't leave you with that warm and fuzzy feeling inside. But what's really jarring though, is not Cain's act of murder. We know from experience that human beings are capable of doing really bad things. What's really jarring -- at least at first glance -- is the pattern of behavior embarked upon by the Almighty.

Cain brings an offering and God turns away from it to favor Abel's gift instead. Abel's gift was nicer and prettier perhaps than Cain's. The text suggests as much, telling us that Abel brought, "from the first of his flocks and from their choicest," while we hear no such detail about Cain's offering. But a little voice inside us asks insistently: Why does God have to reject one and accept the other?

Imagine for a moment the scene: You're the mommy, and Bobby and Debbie, your sparkling, wonderful children, are both working on some surprise homemade birthday presents for you. They've got their colored pencils out, and are busy creating custom art projects for you. Soon enough they are done, and each comes over to display their work. Debbie walks over first. She proudly shows you her colorful, detailed drawing. She points to the hills, to the sunset, to the little cabin by the stream next to the trees. And she presents the picture to you with a gleam in her eyes: "Here, Mommy ... its your birthday present!".

Next it's Bobby's turn. Bobby's drawing isn't as detailed. It hardly has much color, and the people who inhabit its landscape are mostly stick figures. Bobby looks at you expectantly, and now it's your turn to speak.

What do you do?

Every parent in the world knows what to do. You smile, you look at Bobby, you look at Debbie, and then you say: "My, what beautiful pictures you children have made for me!" And you smother them with love and appreciation.

And what happens if the kids are insistent? "No, Mommy, really!" they squeal, "Tell us which painting you like better!" What do you do then?

Well, you know the drill, "I think they are both wonderful," you say, as convincingly as possible, as you shoo them off to bed, "They are each beautiful in their own way!"

"Come on, Bobby, look at what Debbie made for me. Now there's the way to use your crayons!"

And what do we think of the parent who doesn't take this approach? Imagine a parent who gently praises Debbie for her meticulously drawn houses, for the carefully chosen hues of green she used for the grass and flowers. But then she turns to Bobby and her expression changes as she surveys the choppy lines and scribbles. She exclaims, "Oh, Bobby! What kind of drawing is this? You call these people? They are barely stick figures. And that's a sunset? Please, I can barely see the sun. Come on, Bobby, look at what Debbie made for me. Now there's the way to use your crayons!"

This is not what most of us would call good parenting. It's the kind of thing, we would worry, that's going to put Bobby on the psychiatrist's couch for many years later down the road.

So now let's look at the Cain and Abel story. Both Cain and Abel offer their "presents" to God. And God doesn't smile and say "My, they're both so wonderful!" Instead God rejects Cain's offering and accepts Abel's.

But I thought parents aren't supposed to do that.

What's going on here? In the story of Cain and Abel, don't we have a classic case of Bobby and Debbie on our hands? What are we to make of the fact that God dismisses our intuitive parenting advice? Is the Bible trying to disabuse us of our "modern" notions of parenting in favor of something more stern and unforgiving?

Bobby and Debbie Redux

Before giving you my solution to this problem, allow me to make matters worse for a brief few minutes. Let's get back to Bobby and Debbie and ask: What happens next?

Imagine you were Bobby and Debbie's mother, and when your two children had each presented their respective gifts to you, you had inexplicably disregarded that basic rule of parenting, and had favored Debbie's gift over Bobbie's. Now a half hour later you walk by Bobby's room and find him weeping softly into his pillow. You ask him what's the matter and he turns to you and whimpers, "You told me you didn't like my present..." and then comes the kicker, something my child has tried on me one or two times. He says, "Mommies aren't supposed to say things like that to their kids."

How would you react to Bobby's plaintive cries?

Instinctively, most parents -- even those who had initially favored Debby's gift -- would be unable to resist the sight of a weeping Bobby. Most of us would recognize the error of our ways, would scoop Bobby into their arms and apologize for having turned our back on his gift. "You're right," we'd tell him, "Mommy loves you and I'm so sorry for not accepting your gift the way I should have." We'd apologize; we'd tell Bobby we'd had a hard day at work, we weren't paying enough attention; we'd tell him it won't happen again; we'd tell him just about anything in our desperate attempt to make things right.

But that's not how it happens in the Cain and Abel story.

God does not tell Cain that everything will be just fine. Instead God challenges Cain, asking him whether he really has a right to be angry.

Just after God rejects Cain's offering, and immediately before Cain murders his brother, the Almighty speaks to Cain. But God does not soothingly tell Cain that everything will be just fine, that his offering really was pretty good after all. Instead God challenges Cain, asking him whether he really has a right to be angry:

Why are you angry and why has your face fallen? Is it not the case that if you do well, then lift up! And if you don't do well, then, sin lies crouching at the door. (Genesis 4:6-7)

What if the parent who had accepted Debbie's gift but not Bobby's had told the weeping Bobby that if he had done better everything would be just fine; that he should just get over it. Most of us would be ready to pick up the phone and call Social Services. But, how then, are we supposed to come to grips with the Almighty's words to Cain?

And now, dear reader, the ball is in your court. I mentioned before that I felt that the questions I am asking here are not really legitimate. It is my view that the analogy to Bobby and Debbie is faulty and misleading. If you re-read the story of Cain and Abel carefully, I think you should be able to spot the flaw; you should be able to see why Bobby and Debby's sorry plight actually has little indeed to do with the story of Cain and Abel.

About the Author

Rabbi David Fohrman is the founder and CEO at Aleph Beta Academy. He is author of "The Beast that Crouches at the Door," finalist for the 2007 National Jewish Book Award, and "The Queen You Thought You Knew." Rabbi Fohrman seeks to open layers of meaning of Biblical text and to help the reader develop a relationship with the texts that make us who we are. For more of his work, see www.alephbeta.org.

Visitor Comments: 15

incest is wrong and beastiality is wrong so where did the human race start because it wasnt cain as far as i can telunless he sinned against gods word

(14)
Pepe,
November 18, 2007 10:15 AM

Not accetable to God?

Why should He accept one thing and not the other? Imagine what could have happened if God accepted Cain's offering and not Abels'?What would have been Abel's reaction?Why did God kill Abel and blamed Cain? Is G-D a human that He should act/react like one of them? Are His choices like one of ours? Art we to say(continuing saying) that the God of the Bible is unexplainable?

(13)
lisa,
November 13, 2007 1:02 PM

Cain's Offering?

The story of Cain and Abel is about personal growth. The story tells us, one day, Cain has a brilliant idea to "give a gift" to God. So, both brothers go to God with an offering. Cain shows up with fruit from the ground. God loves Cain and wants Cain to learn two lessons and he does this by ignoring Cain until he makes a more appropriate effort which the story shows he never chooses this direction for his life. First, its not enough to have a great idea, one must see it to "fruition." Cain's offering/work for God must be equal to or more challenging than his personal ability for the gift to have any meaning, or for Cain to learn hard work/self-sacrifice leads to pride and growth of a person. Secondly,it must actually be a gift. Cain did not give anything from himself really, the fruit was on the ground which means it did not belong to anyone. Meanwhile, Abel shows up with his, emphasizing "his", best calves and work in animal husbandry. Its a big sacrifice. Its easy to assume that one brother is toiling the soil as a farmer and the other tending livestock, but really only Abel is productivey working, so God blesses him by turning toward him and acknowledges his offering. Instead of focusing on how he could be productive, Cain chooses to be vindictive, jealous and destructive and murders his brother. He not only stops his own moral growth toward goodness, Cain moves in the other direction toward evilness. The story is so much deeper/darker and filled with pain and sorrow and corruption when one takes into account that Cain's soul was lost in the insanity of coveting and immaturity and slothfulness...he took God fruit from the ground. Fruit from the ground is spoiled, and it was no gift. It was a message of anger and hostility and a clue that Cain was resisting God's gifts that would help him reach his own personal growth in life. Cain can only offer spoiled fruit, because he is spoiled, and that is all he could offer.

(12)
Kim,
November 10, 2007 7:11 AM

Dirt (man's might) vs. Blood Sacrifice

Is it because Abel's sacrifice represented a blood sacrifice? I see a message from God of an order of sacrifice being developed which is pleasing to God -- And when God gave Cain a second chance later in the story, in the land of Nod, East of Eden, he never entered into proper sacrifice which he knew at this point would be pleasing to God - ?

(11)
misterb,
November 7, 2007 4:41 PM

Agricultural revolution

Adam and Eve represent a time in history when homo sapiens began moving from hunter-gatherers (living in the garden of eden) to farmers and herders; eating from the tree of knowlege (farming) and the tree of life (procreating livestock). Cain represents the "tillers" who began the agricultural and domestication revolution. They began to take arable land for farming and herding by force, protecting this land from encroacment by hunter-gatherer tribes still present (Able); symbolically murdering Able by systematically destroying the nomadic herders and the hunter/gatherer way of life. Cain's legacy continues to this day.

(10)
misterb,
November 7, 2007 4:12 PM

agricultural revolution

Cain represents greed

(9)
cain & abel,
November 6, 2007 7:22 PM

my understanding is that the reason cain's sacrifice was not accepted is because he did not give God the best and abdel did.

(8)
lena,
November 6, 2007 1:19 PM

blood sacrifice was required to cover their sin so God had to sacrificed an animal. Abel in rightness brought the right gift so was accepted ,on the other hand Cain in his arrogances brought the fruit of the ground that God had cursed if he was right he would have humble himself to his brother and ask for a trade with a lamb from his flock

(7)
Julie,
November 6, 2007 9:24 AM

Cain and abel/ Debbie and Bobbie

If you study the Genesis verses more carefully, you'll find that Abel offered his best- 1st fruits, if you will to The LORD. Whereas, Cain did not consider his best or put the LORD 1st. This is a heart issue. Who comes 1st? The LOrd or yourself?

(6)
ilana,
November 5, 2007 11:31 PM

Right on, Ali!

No wonder there's only one comment here; Ali hit all the nails on their respective heads! But the most significant point is that Abel (not Able, Ali, though he may have been;) chose what was most valuable of his and offered it to G-d out of love. Cain offered a less choice portion of his belongings, and did so somewhat grudgingly. The fact that Cain's animals were "nicer" is completely irrelevant. What does G-d care for fruits or meat? The point was that it was the best that he had. Interestingly, another article on this very website illustrates this beautifully. (Birthday Blues by Yael Mermelstein)

(5)
David Ben-Ariel,
November 5, 2007 7:43 PM

Blood, sweat and tears

Adam and Eve tried to hide their nakedness with fig leaves and it didn't make the cut: Abba covered them with skins (blood sacrifice was required to atone for them). Doesn't Cain's offering reveal a superficial gift that didn't require blood, sweat and tears - but merely picking a few fig leaves, so to speak? Self-righteous offering? Wasn't it also all about attitude behind the actions? That's why Cain was warned to keep bitterness in check. It's interesting that contrary to stereotypes, the carnivore was righteous and the "vegetarian" got violent.

(4)
Anonymous,
November 5, 2007 6:06 PM

Rejected Gift

The reason Ables gift was accepted and not Cains goes back to the time in the garden of Eden. The serpent did not beguil Eve into eatting from an actual fruit tree growing out of the ground but instead it was a tree in the "midts" of the garden. It was a tree which was a Law. There were 2 trees Adam & Eve were "not" to pertake of. One being the tree of knowlege of good and evil, the other the tree of "LIFE". Satan entered into the heart of the serpant and cause him to suduce Eve to pertake of the tree of knowlege which would cause death. This was a sexual act between Eve and the serpent. Hence forth Eve became impregnated by the serpant with Cain. She then convinced Adam to have intimate relations with her the same day, and another seed was planted...Able. Adam is a real son of God making Able a real son of God. In turn being of the same blood line.Cain was serpent seed....not a child of God but one that is part animal, one that was not under Gods plan of reproduction at all but made by Satans plan to destroy Gods perfect plan. Why would God appove of something that was not of Him? He wouldn't. This is why God rejected Cain's offering. Cain then killed Able, his half-brother out of jelioucy because sin or iniquity started with Lucifer, aka Satan. I can give you scripture to back up everything I just pointed out.

(3)
Heather Hart,
November 5, 2007 4:14 PM

Whom do we fear?

The difference is not one of preference,as in the story of Bobby and Debbie. It is one of obedience. In Genesis 3, God cursed the ground because of Adam's sin. Abel brought a physical offering - the lamb, because of his spiritual offering - obedience. Obedience which stemmed from the fear of the Lord. If Almighty God cursed the ground, why would he want to bring an offering from it? God, in His compassion, was alerting Cain to the sin waiting to take advantage of him but Cain, being in offence, couldn't receive the correction due to his pride. Offence steals faith away and without faith it is impossible to please God.

(2)
Mariana Bell,
November 5, 2007 1:36 PM

the fruit of one's labours versus the shedding of blood

Cain offerred G-d some of the fruit of his labours while Abel offerred a blood sacrifice. The message could be that we cannot redeem ourselves through our own toils but only through the grace of G-d.

(1)
Ali,
November 4, 2007 4:49 PM

Specialization of Labor

I think that the analogy of Bobby and Debbie does not reflect the same situation as Cain and Able because while Bobby and Debbie both offered their parent the same gift, Cain and Able offered Hashem Different gifts from their different occupations. Able was a Shepard and Cain was a tiller of the ground, and thus, they had different strengths and offered gifts according to their strengths. The Torah also says that Able brought the "Firstling and fat" of his flock, whereas in describing Cain's sacrifice, it only says that Cain gave the fruits of the earth. It does not say that they were the best fruits, and thus, we can assume that the fruits were either average or maybe sub-par. Also, the word "sacrifice" indicates that something is given up or lost. Able's sacrifice of his best sheep meant that he went without the wool, milk and potential offspring of this best sheep, whereas Cain lost nothing in offering G-d fruit. We pick fruit off trees knowing that more will always grow back. By offering fruit, then, Cain gives up nothing. Offering his highest-yielding tree or plant would have "matched" Able's sacrifice. So that's why G-d told him to shape up! Further, since the sacrifices are of different natures, Cain and Able aren't really in "competition"Back to the Debbie/Bobby analogy, these are two children who gave the same gift. We do not know about the children's various strengths, but it seems that Debbie may be a better artist than Bobby in this situation, and Thus, the quality of Bobby's work is not really in his control: no matter how much effort he puts in, his picture will probably never be as good as Debbie's.

I'm told that it's a mitzvah to become intoxicated on Purim. This puzzles me, because to my understanding, it is not considered a good thing to become intoxicated, period.

One of the characteristics of the at-risk youth is their use of drugs, including alcohol. In my experience, getting drunk doesn't reveal secrets. It makes people act stupid and irresponsible, doing things they would never do if they were sober. Also, I know a lot about the horrible health effects of abusing alcohol, because I work at a research center that focuses on addiction and substance abuse.

Also, I am an alcoholic, which means that if I drink, very bad things happen. I have not had a drink in 22 years, and I have no intention of starting now. Surely there must be instances where a person is excused from the obligation to drink. I don't see how Judaism could ever promote the idea of getting drunk. It just doesn't seem right.

The Aish Rabbi Replies:

Putting aside for a moment all the spiritual and philosophical reasons for getting drunk on Purim, this remains an issue of common sense. Of course, teenagers should be warned of the dangers of acute alcohol ingestion. Of course, nobody should drink and drive. Of course, nobody should become so drunk to the point of negligence in performing mitzvot. And of course, a recovering alcoholic should not partake of alcohol on Purim.

Indeed, the Code of Jewish Law explicitly says that if one suspects the drinking may affect him negatively, then he should NOT drink.

Getting drunk on Purim is actually one of the most difficult mitzvot to do correctly. A person should only drink if it will lead to positive spiritual results - e.g. under the loosening affect of the alcohol, greater awareness will surface of the love for God and Torah found deep in the heart. (Perhaps if we were on a higher spiritual level, we wouldn't need to get drunk!)

Yet the Talmud still speaks of an obligation on Purim of "not knowing the difference between Blessed is Mordechai and Cursed is Haman." How then should a person who doesn't drink get the point of “not knowing”? Simple - just go to sleep! (Rama - OC 695:2)

All this applies to individuals. But the question remains - does drinking on Purim adversely affect the collective social health of the Jewish community?

The aversion to alcoholism is engrained into Jewish consciousness from a number of Biblical and Talmudic sources. There are the rebuking words of prophets - Isaiah 28:1, Hosea 3:1 with Rashi, and Amos 6:6, and the Zohar says that "The wicked stray after wine" (Midrash Ne'alam Parshat Vayera).

It is well known that the rate of alcoholism among Jews has historically been very low. Numerous medical, psychological and sociological studies have confirmed this. The connection between Judaism and sobriety is so evident, that the following conversation is reported by Lawrence Kelemen in "Permission to Receive":

When Dr. Mark Keller, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, commented that "practically all Jews do drink, and yet all the world knows that Jews hardly ever become alcoholics," his colleague, Dr. Howard Haggard, director of Yale's Laboratory of Applied Physiology, jokingly proposed converting alcoholics to the Jewish religion in order to immerse them in a culture with healthy attitudes toward drinking!

Perhaps we could suggest that it is precisely because of the use of alcohol in traditional ceremonies (Kiddush, Bris, Purim, etc.), that Jews experience such low rates of alcoholism. This ceremonial usage may actually act like an inoculation - i.e. injecting a safe amount that keeps the disease away.

Of course, as we said earlier, all this needs to be monitored with good common sense. Yet in my personal experience - having been in the company of Torah scholars who were totally drunk on Purim - they acted with extreme gentleness and joy. Amid the Jewish songs and beautiful words of Torah, every year the event is, for me, very special.

Adar 12 marks the dedication of Herod's renovations on the second Holy Temple in Jerusalem in 11 BCE. Herod was king of Judea in the first century BCE who constructed grand projects like the fortresses at Masada and Herodium, the city of Caesarea, and fortifications around the old city of Jerusalem. The most ambitious of Herod's projects was the re-building of the Temple, which was in disrepair after standing over 300 years. Herod's renovations included a huge man-made platform that remains today the largest man-made platform in the world. It took 10,000 men 10 years just to build the retaining walls around the Temple Mount; the Western Wall that we know today is part of that retaining wall. The Temple itself was a phenomenal site, covered in gold and marble. As the Talmud says, "He who has not seen Herod's building, has never in his life seen a truly grand building."

Some people gauge the value of themselves by what they own. But in reality, the entire concept of ownership of possessions is based on an illusion. When you obtain a material object, it does not become part of you. Ownership is merely your right to use specific objects whenever you wish.

How unfortunate is the person who has an ambition to cleave to something impossible to cleave to! Such a person will not obtain what he desires and will experience suffering.

Fortunate is the person whose ambition it is to acquire personal growth that is independent of external factors. Such a person will lead a happy and rewarding life.

With exercising patience you could have saved yourself 400 zuzim (Berachos 20a).

This Talmudic proverb arose from a case where someone was fined 400 zuzim because he acted in undue haste and insulted some one.

I was once pulling into a parking lot. Since I was a bit late for an important appointment, I was terribly annoyed that the lead car in the procession was creeping at a snail's pace. The driver immediately in front of me was showing his impatience by sounding his horn. In my aggravation, I wanted to join him, but I saw no real purpose in adding to the cacophony.

When the lead driver finally pulled into a parking space, I saw a wheelchair symbol on his rear license plate. He was handicapped and was obviously in need of the nearest parking space. I felt bad that I had harbored such hostile feelings about him, but was gratified that I had not sounded my horn, because then I would really have felt guilty for my lack of consideration.

This incident has helped me to delay my reactions to other frustrating situations until I have more time to evaluate all the circumstances. My motives do not stem from lofty principles, but from my desire to avoid having to feel guilt and remorse for having been foolish or inconsiderate.

Today I shall...

try to withhold impulsive reaction, bearing in mind that a hasty act performed without full knowledge of all the circumstances may cause me much distress.

With stories and insights,
Rabbi Twerski's new book Twerski on Machzor makes Rosh Hashanah prayers more meaningful. Click here to order...